Journal title
Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Motivation:
I would like to thank all people of the Asian Journal of Control for your kind cooperation.
Motivation:
This is my second publication in ASDE. As was the case with the first one, the review process was, overall, very good experience. The initial reviewers made very useful comments and suggestions that helped a lot to improve the work. The subsequent rounds of review were mostly textual or editorial in nature. They were dragged on to ''R3'' due to specific journal requirements, some of which I consider a little strange. An example is the requirement to have a Figure (photo) in the Introduction Section of the manuscript. While subsequent schedules for re-evaluating revised manuscripts were great in their timing, I strongly suggest to improve on the time between initial submission and first review result. My first manuscript with ASDE also suffered from delayed initial review.
Motivation:
I have been writing paper for journals for 46 years, and this is one of the best experiences I have had. The referees' comments were extremely useful and I received them within in one month of submission. After I made the revisions I felt my paper was much improved. The whole procedure was very efficient. The website was standard and easy to use, but when I messed up the submission of the revised paper (my fault entirely), I got help immediately that solved the problem.
Motivation:
The manuscript was sent to a revier. But all the reviewer said was "This submission is not sufficiently clear or well argued for publication in Philosophical Studies."
Motivation:
It didn't take long. The referee raised some important objections to my argument.
Motivation:
Passed to Advisor stage before editorial rejection. Slower than usual decision due to holiday period.
Motivation:
Disagreement among reviewers led to very lengthly 9-month process of multiple reviews and repeated rebuttles. In the end, 2 positive reviewers and 1 negative reviewer, the editor sided with the negative and in the end the paper was rejected. However, during review periods decisions were reached fairly quickly (3-4 weeks) and editors were very communicative.
Motivation:
4 weeks for editorial decision not to send for external review was way too lengthy.
Motivation:
The review time was long, yet I only received reviews from one reviewer. The review was not detailed and the majority of it was a summary of what was presented in the paper. The editor held back from making a decision for 2 months and although the reviewer comments were not negative, the editor decided to reject the paper without providing any reasons.
Over the past 6 years this has been the worst journal I have dealt with. I feel like they wasted my time...
Over the past 6 years this has been the worst journal I have dealt with. I feel like they wasted my time...
Motivation:
Reviewers comments did not help me to improve the paper. Their comments indicated a possible lack of understanding of the problem, methodology and the solution. The editor who supervised the review, followed the reviewers decision.
Motivation:
The mail informing about the decision mentioned that my paper is not suitable for Research Policy and wished me luck in submission with other journals. No reasons were given. 20 weeks is too long a time for such a comment.
Motivation:
Handling Editor-in-Chief changed during the review process (8 months after 1st submission) and thus, there was another set of new reviews which was unnecessary. EiC should've completed the decision process before stepping down. Not very professional I must say.
Motivation:
Neuroimage (NI) is arguably the top journal in the area of Neuroimaging. Although my proposed methodology was appreciated, the writing style was suggested for further improvement. I didn't see any strong negative comments from the reviewers. I guess NI is focused on maintaining a very high rejection rate.
Motivation:
The rejection letter to the resubmitted manuscript, which was revised according to reviewer comments after the first round of peer review, stated that the subject matter was not of interest to the broader readership of the journal.This being the case, it would have been preferable if the manuscript had been rejected immediately after first being submitted to the journal which would have saved us at least 6 months. Now we have to begin the process of submission again with another journal.
Motivation:
First round of reviews took 6 months. Reviews were of somewhat OK quality, pointing towards major revisions. Editor did not bother to comment or synthesize reviews, but rejected with a one-line comment.
Motivation:
The overall process was relatively fast. The manuscript was assigned to three different referees, nevertheless their background on the topic studied in the manuscript was apparently poor and resulted in several naive comments. I do not know if the journal's policy, regarding its broad readership, includes inviting not specialized reviewers, however, we finally got only a minimal feedback, despite the three different reports we received. The manuscript was rejected because the reviews were "not positive enough". We ended up surprised, not by the rejection per se, but by the unexpectedly low quality of the reviews.
Motivation:
The review reports were candid and constructive. The quality of the manuscript definitely improved from the initial submission. It is worth the wait!
Motivation:
The manuscript was rejected by the Editorial Board after almost 7 months. During this period I kindly asked to have some communication by the Editor but I never had any reply. According to the Journal web site, the manuscript was under review, but the communication by the Editor in Chief simply said that “the Editorial Board has evaluated the manuscript unacceptable for publication in our journal”. No additional comment or reason was provided or available on the website.
Motivation:
Very good communication with the Editor. Also, the Editor gives details from the beginning about the period necessary for reviewing the manuscript and kept it. It offers a large variety of possibilities for the topics. A little bit too long to wait for answers from the reviewers, but communication with the Editor compensates this problem.
23.7 weeks
42.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
Motivation:
Too much long review process. More than an year to see the paper published.